Riemers v. Peters-Riemers
Citation | 684 N.W.2d 619,2004 ND 153 |
Decision Date | 23 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 20030353.,20030353. |
Parties | Roland C. RIEMERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Jenese PETERS-RIEMERS, Michael L. Gjesdahl, and Gjesdahl & Dietz, PLLP, Defendants and Appellees. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Roland C. Riemers, pro se, Grand Forks, N.D., plaintiff and appellant.
Michael L. Gjesdahl, Gjesdahl & Associates, Fargo, N.D., for defendants and appellees.
[¶ 1] Roland Riemers appeals the dismissal with prejudice of his civil action1 against Jenese Peters-Riemers (n/k/a Peters-Harris), his former wife, her attorney, Michael Gjesdahl, and his law firm. We affirm.
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1195, 123 S.Ct. 1252, 154 L.Ed.2d 1031 (2003) ( ); Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2003 ND 96, 663 N.W.2d 657 ( ); Peters-Riemers v. Riemers, 2004 ND 28, 674 N.W.2d 287 ( ); Riemers v. O'Halloran, 2004 ND 79, 678 N.W.2d 547 ( ); Riemers v. Anderson, 2004 ND 109, 680 N.W.2d 280 ( ).
[¶ 3] Riemers commenced an action against Peters-Riemers, Gjesdahl, and Gjesdahl's law firm to recover damages for alleged torts occurring during his marriage and during his divorce proceedings which he alleged caused him injuries. He requested more than 200 million dollars in damages. The trial court summarized Riemers' claims as follows:
[¶ 4] The trial court granted summary judgment to Peters-Riemers, Gjesdahl, and Gjesdahl's law firm and dismissed Riemers' action with prejudice. The trial court concluded that: 1.) Riemers' claims against Peters-Riemers are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata, and any claims Riemers has regarding visitation are under the continuing and exclusive jurisdiction of the trial court for the divorce proceedings; 2.) Riemers' claims against Peters-Riemers, Gjesdahl, and Gjesdahl's law firm for conspiracy to give false testimony and abuse of process were not supported by facts sufficient to survive summary judgment; any allegation regarding perjured testimony at the divorce proceedings may not be collaterally attacked by Riemers; no civil action for damages will lie for perjury; Riemers failed to establish competent admissible facts to prove a civil action for conspiracy to commit perjury; Riemers' claim of abuse of process is barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata because the contempt order for which he was jailed was already fully litigated and appealed; his argument regarding abuse of process was not supported by sufficient facts in his affidavits; and 3.) Riemers' claims against Gjesdahl and his law firm are conclusory and unsupported factually; Riemers' affidavits in response to the defendants' motion are conclusory and contain no facts supporting his claims of deceit and collusion; Gjesdahl lied to the court and the United States Immigration Service; he allowed or encouraged Peters-Riemers to lie in the divorce proceedings; and he abused the judicial process.
[¶ 5] The trial court denied Riemers' request for a 30-day continuance to amend his complaint and a 90-day continuance to conduct further discovery, concluding that Riemers had sufficient time to present his evidence pertinent to the motion for summary judgment.
[¶ 6] Riemers now appeals the order dismissing his action with prejudice against Peters-Riemers, Gjesdahl, and Gjesdahl's law firm.
[¶ 7] Our standard of review for granting a summary judgment is as follows:
Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16, ¶¶ 7, 8, 673 N.W.2d 615 (citations and quotations omitted).
[¶ 8] Riemers argues his claims against Peters-Riemers for emotional and physical abuse are not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel. He contends these issues against Peters-Riemers were not addressed because Judge Backes "flipped through" the pleadings and failed to properly review them. He also argues he did not admit to assaulting Peters-Riemers when he pled guilty to the criminal charge, but submitted an Alford plea. We disagree.
[¶ 9] Courts bar relitigation of claims and issues to promote the finality of judgments, which increases certainty, discourages multiple litigation, wards off wasteful delay and expense, and conserves judicial resources. Riemers, 2004 ND 109, ¶ 12, 680 N.W.2d 280 (quoting Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Clark, 1998 ND 153, ¶ 23, 583 N.W.2d 377). "[C]ollateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, generally forecloses the relitigation in a second action based on a different claim, of particular issues of either fact or law which were, or by logical and necessary implication must have been, litigated and determined in the prior suit." Riemers, 2004 ND 109, ¶ 12, 680 N.W.2d 280 (quoting Reed v. University of N.D., 1999 ND 25, ¶ 9, 589 N.W.2d 880 (quotation omitted)). An issue must satisfy four tests before collateral estoppel will bar relitigation of that issue in a new proceeding: "(1) Was the issue decided in the prior adjudication identical to the one presented in the action in question?; (2) Was there a final judgment on the merits?; (3) Was the party against whom the plea is asserted a party or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication?; and (4) Was the party against whom the plea is asserted given a fair opportunity to be heard on the issue?" Hofsommer v. Hofsommer Excavating, Inc., 488 N.W.2d 380, 384 (N.D.1992).
[¶ 10] In Riemers and Peters-Riemers' divorce proceedings, Riemers alleged that Peters-Riemers had committed domestic violence against him and that his actions were in self-defense. In the trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, dated May 4, 2001, it specifically found:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ackre v. Chapman
...under N.D.C.C. § 27-13-08 have generally involved actions by clients or parties to a legal proceeding against attorneys. See Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2004 ND 153, ¶¶ 27-30, 684 N.W.2d 619 (concluding allegations by party to proceedings against opposing party's attorney were conclusory and......
-
Norberg v. Norberg
...certainty, discourages multiple litigation, wards off wasteful delay and expense, and conserves judicial resources." Riemers v. Peters–Riemers, 2004 ND 153, ¶ 9, 684 N.W.2d 619. "[C]ollateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, generally forecloses the relitigation, in a second action based on a......
-
Witzke v. City of Bismarck
...increases certainty, discourages multiple litigation, wards off wasteful delay and expense, and conserves judicial resources. Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2004 ND 153, ¶ 9, 684 N.W.2d 619. We recently explained in Simpson v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 2005 ND 55, ¶ 8, 693 N.W.2d Although col......
-
Buri v. Ramsey, 20040164.
...devoid of merit, or demonstrates persistence in the course of litigation which could be seen as evidence of bad faith." Riemers v. Peters-Riemers, 2004 ND 153, ¶ 38, 684 N.W.2d [¶ 28] Buri argues the Ramseys' contention that this is a contractual dispute rather than a conversion is without ......